Posted on 08/29/2005 3:19:39 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Memo to Arnold: Don't take the conservative base for granted.
The Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, started out the program today with Hugh Hewitt, and in addition to the slate of proposition on reform the Governator wants to pass, lots of issues the base out here cares about were brought up. Here's how that interview went:
HH: We kick today off with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has thrown the California political map into a complete tumult with a special election coming up in November. Governor, good to talk to you.
AS: Hello, how are you, Hugh? This is great to talk to you.
HH: Thank you. It's always good to have you on, Governor. Before we go to the initiatives, and we've got to get through each of them, let me ask you. Your neighboring governors, Governor Napolitano, Governor Richardson, have declared border states of emergency in Arizona and New Mexico, respectively. Is that grandstanding?
AS: Well, I think that they have different issues than we have. They have real emergencies on the borders, they have livestock being killed, they have human trafficking, they have drug trafficking, and they have also the same problem we have, which is the flow of illegal immigrants coming in. But they have...I just recently came from a border Governor's conference in Mexico, and all of the Governors got together that are on the borders, and we talked about that. And we came up with a resolution about all working together to create more security on the border, and protect the borders and all that. So it's been a major issue, but they have an even bigger problem than we have.
HH: All right. Now I want to go on to the initiatives, because you made a roll of the dice here, and you've thrown California's political calculus, and thus, the country's, into a little bit of upheaval, especially with Prop. 77. I'm not sold on redistricting, Governor. Tell me why I should vote for this.
AS: Well, I think that what is important is that the last time we did redistricting, it was the politicians that drew the district lines. And when politicians draw district lines, that means that they are drawing it in a way that protects themselves. It protects the incumbent. So what they have done is they've built this little castle, and to protect themselves, not let anyone else go in, and not creating competition. And in order...instead of protecting the people, the voters, they've protected themselves. It was all about them, rather than about the voters, about the people out there that need to be protected. And so when I was elected, I said that I will be a Governor that will be the people's Governor, and I want to protect the people, not the politicians. So it is important that we redo that, and it is a panel of retired judges that have no vested interest in the outcome. They should draw the district lines so that it is fair, and is competetive between Democrats and Republicans. Because what they have done when they drew the district line is they have picked the voters. And that is the wrong way to go, because it has to be the voters that pick the politicians, not the politicians picking the voters.
HH: Now Governor, I know a lot of retired judges, and some of them are quite sweet, but there are many I wouldn't let change the oil in my car, much less my Congressional districts. How do we know we're not going to get bums?
AS: Well, because they will be selected, and it will be a good and fair selection and all that. I think that this is very important that we have...the question always is...with everything is, do you want to continue the old system? Do you want to keep the status quo? Do you really want to have the politicians draw the district lines that is in favor of them, rather than in favor of the voters? That's really what the issue is here. And I always said that I want to reform the system, and I want to make sure that the people are represented the proper way, because the people are working hard out there, it's the people that are paying the taxes, that live by the rules and all this. And they should really be fairly represented so that there is a competetive district, so that Democrats and Republicans can compete and go out there and campaign, rather than fixing the system the way it is right now.
HH: All right, Governor. Let's turn to public school teachers. Yesterday, we did a story on the Canton Timken Public High School in Canton, Ohio, which had sixty five pregnant high school girls out of a total of 490 girls. That school's obviously broken down. What's got you taking aim at the public school teacher's tenure?
AS: Well, I think that we always said that there is a huge problem we have in education. We are spending this time, I mean this year, we increased education spending by $3 billion dollars. It's the hugest increase. We are spending $50 billion dollars altogether in education. It's the most that we have ever spent in the history of California. And we are not getting what we are supposed to get. You know, the system has to be reformed, but at the same time, we need to make sure that we don't tackle all of the problems at the same time, and do it one at a time. The first thing I said is let's start with the teachers. It is unfair that after two years, teachers have lifetime guarantees for their jobs, and if they're good or bad, they stay in there. You can't get rid of bad teachers. And you cannot reward good teachers with bonuses, or recognition pay, which I have proposed. All of those things are just wrong the way it is done right now. So what I propose in my teacher's tenure is, let's increase that after not two years you get the lifetime guarantee for your job, but after five years. Let the teachers prove themselves, because there are so many talented and so many hardworking teachers out there. And they should get rewarded. But the ones that are not making it, we should be able to get rid of them, and I think we should do the weeding out early on.
HH: Now Prop. 76, the companion initiative, goes after state spending, and part of that is school funding. Are you proposing to cut school funding?
AS: No, no. We never want to cut anything. As a matter of fact, it's quite the opposite. We want to increase funding for education, because as you know, I'm an education Governor. I want to make sure that education gets a fair amount of money, but we have to also show accountability. People want to see accountability, that the money is spent wisely, and more that 65% go into the classroom. That's what we are shooting for. What is happening right now is the money does not go into the classroom. It doesn't go towards the teachers. It goes to many other things, and administrative costs. So we want to clean house there. We want to make sure that the parents get their moneys worth, because they are paying the taxes. And we want to make sure that the children get the best education possible. So teachers tenure is the thing to start, and then we're going to continue on and expand and create real reform in education. But the important thing is we have to increase education spending, pay as much attention to education as possible, and really treat the teachers the right way, with respect, and give them a merit pay, and increase their pay.
HH: Now, there are a whole bunch of other initiatives on here that you did not put on, but I'd like your opinion on two of them. Prop. 73, which is a waiting period and parental notification for minors seeking an abortion. Will you vote for Prop. 73, Governor?
AS: Well, to be honest with you, I'm right now focuses only on our propositions. So we stay focused, so I don't go all over the place here, and talk about many initiatives, all of the initiatives. So this is why we always get involved with the other initiatives down the line. So maybe in October, we'll get involved with the other initiatives. But right now, it is important for us to talk about teachers tenure, to talk about living in our means, Proposition 76, and Proposition 77, which is the redistricting. And may I remind you, the key thing here is that when you talk about living within our means, is that the state stops spending more money than we take in. What created this huge mess, and why we had the recall election, was simply because our legislators could not keep control over their spending. They rung up a $22 billion dollar debt. That's what I have inherited. And they still today did not get the message. They're still spending more money than we have. This coming year, our structural defecit will be an additional $7.5 billion dollars. We cannot continue this way. And I simple reason why this is bad is that not only because we are not living within our means, but we never save enough money to really build an infrastructure, to work on our highways and freeways. We cannot afford all of these things. We need to build more schools. We need to build hospitals, emergency rooms. We need to create more nurses, more teachers. There's so many challenges ahead of us. If we continue always living in debt, we cannot afford what we need...
HH: That's absolutely true, but can you expect conservatives to get up and march, and you need them to march on this stuff, if you're not out there for say paycheck protection? I mean, that one's...that's the nuclear weapon that's been unleashed here. If the unions lose their stolen money from their people, they're going to be crippled. So are you going to be out there for Prop. 75?
AS: Well, again, like I said earlier, I'm not getting off...in principle, I'm for all of those things, but we are not going to get involved in endorsing any of the other initiatives. What is important is that we're using November 8th as the time for all of California to rally together and go to the polls and to vote, and to create real change. Because the legislators are incapable to create real reform in California, which we need so badly, in order to fix the broken system. I always promised the people that when I come into office, I will fix the broken system.
HH: Will you be appointing the new Justice on the California Supreme Court before the election?
AS: I don't think it will be before the election, but I mean...
HH: Are conservatives going to be happy, Governor?
AS: We are right now going through the process, and it is, as you know, it's always very important that we appoint the right person, the most competent person, the person that really has skills and experience.
HH: But it's got to be a conservative. I mean, Janice Rogers Brown was the most conservative member of that court, and if you come in with a moderate, aren't the conservatives going to sit on their hands for you, Governor, next year?
AS: You can count on it that we will do the right...we will pick the right choice, and that we will do the right replacement.
End of interview.
Let's see... Arnold says he'll spend more money. Well, that's not it. Arnold ADMITS he'll spend more money? Maybe... Hugh Hewitt still believes what Arnold says? That's hardly new, but then I sure as hell wouldn't want him as MY lawyer...
OH! I see it! Arnold is applying the winning political formula of GHWB, "The Education President"!!!
Yawn. Who cares what Arnold says? I don't know why anybody would bother believing him.
well unlike Buchanan, McClintock had the election won had Ahnold stayed out.
And now we're paying for it in spades...
only problem now, with the mess that Ahnold is going to leave; it's going to be verrrrrry difficult for the GOP to win the governorship again in CA for some time...
Well, I don't always think "conservatism" is enlightening either (it depends on the issue), but then there is a fight to capture that term too. :)
And that is exactly why he jumped in!
no I think he jumped in the race 'cause his ego said "you can be governor of CA"...
and I think now that he's got his cookies off being governor he'll take the 5 Southbound next year...
the wifey is probably already bitchin' "we can't live off the payola!"
"Go make another Terminator will ya!" LOL
Wow.
Bump
---
Bush, Schwarzenegger won't meet on president's California trip
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1473168/posts
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Schwarzenegger does great things for the re-election of George W. Bush by immediately putting California into in '04 when Schwarzenegger is sworn in as governor, and Schwarzenegger helps the likely GOP Senate nominee against Barbara Boxer – the conservative Tony Strickland. So Schwarzenegger is closer to Pataki than Reagan, so what? It is a huge advantage to have an ally in the statehouse. The choice to think about with '04 in mind is not Schwarzenegger vs. McClintock or Simon, it is Schwarzenegger vs. Cruz.My how times change.The GOP benefits as a whole. Imagine you are Jim DeMint, likely nominee of the GOP for the open U.S. Senate seat in South Carolina, or Lisa Murkowski, incumbent GOP senator in Alaska. Wouldn't it be great to call the Bush people and ask for and get Schwarzenegger to drop into your state for a little fundraiser at $1,000 a head? This is what Bill Clinton does 24x7x365. Schwarzenegger would be a hyperdraw on the fundraising circuit, a crucial component of politics, exceeded only by the president and the vice president. Three such draws is better than two.
Nope. He jumped in because Bob White told Duf Sundheim and Gerry Parsky that Arnold was ready.
Of course we're not, Guv. Millions of our school children don't even speak English. They're fresh from Mexico. You expect US to keep paying for illegal aliens while our own kids get cheated out of the education we're paying such a huge price for?? Stop listening to your master in the White House, Guv.
Reduce the rate of growth from what? The rate of growth is increasing.
We're not even close to "maintaining (then) current (spending) levels"
California: A bunch of drunken sailors [budget is a "disaster in the making"]
In the 1999-2000 budget, state government saw a 14 percent increase in general fund spending, from $57 billion to $66 billion. That budget was the first of the Davis budget debacles that ultimately resulted in the deficits of the last three years. In my article, “Projects of Regional Concern (PORC)” written in May of 2000, I wrote that this was the beginning of the next budget mess. By May of 2001, it was evident to anyone who would look that the budget was on the brink of collapse. I wrote “The Perfect Budget Storm” in May of 2001, and said just that. Within 6 months, the budget collapsed.We are in the same place today as in 1999-2000. This year’s budget increased spending from $78.7 billion to $90.14 billion, a 14 percent increase. Now some will say that last year’s budget really didn’t spend $78.7 billion, it really spent $80.7 billion or $81.7 billion. It doesn’t matter — it is still a 10 percent increase. The fact is this budget took nearly every dime of new money that came in, and spent it on bigger government. We are sowing the seeds of the next budget disaster.
Let's begin with the budget's proposed spending plan. As shown in the accompanying chart the enacted budget contains $90 billion of general fund expenditures by various state agencies. This is an increase of about $8 billion from an estimated expenditure level of $81.7 in the 2004-05 fiscal year - an increase of 10.2 percent. Ironically, the adopted spending plan of $90 billion is $12.4 billion higher than former Gov. Gray Davis' 2003-04 budget - an increase of 16 percent over two years.
CA: Governor can't trim bulge out of budget - General fund spending up 10%; plan goes to vote today
The Legislature is scheduled to vote today on a new budget Schwarzenegger negotiated with legislative leaders that increases general fund spending by 10.3 percent, to $90.1 billion. The first budget that the governor signed last July increased general fund spending by 7 percent. The general fund pays for schools, higher education, health care, prisons and other programs Spending keeps ratcheting up, outpacing increases in tax revenue from an improving economy, as the governor struggles to close a 5-year-old budget gap and schools complain that they are seriously underfunded.
Thank you for the ping.
Very disappointing interview, from HH's softballs to Arnold's two-steps.
Hogwash, Hewitt. The recall *was* the realignment or as best as we could muster in the Democrat paradise of CA. That more has not been done to support Arnold, that his first year was "squandered" in trying to play mr nice bipartisan... he was a totally unprepared for the insular culture of legislature and how nasty the unions would get. That the GOP vets didn't HELP him and educate him and guide him until he got up to speed is SHAMEFUL. He singlehandedly offered the GOP a golden opportunity to reform CA by getting elected. All I see is tearing him down for being too environmentalist friendly, for not being a McClintock clone and never any credit for his efforts which have the CA economy rolling along again with a less business-adverse climate, NO NEW TAXES, reversed the car tax, killed illegal alien driver's licenses, boldly supported the Minute Men while Bush called them vigilantes, saved 3-strikes, is servicing the debt early and with his reforms taking the fight to the people. Look you, and Hewitt and others around CA *MUST* support Arnold's package in November or we all might as well just cash out on our home equity windfalls and retreat to other states. This special election is the Alamo, people. This is SERIOUS. It's the next step forward. He's not perfect but we must STOP with the negativity, the "what have you done for us lately" pettiness.
He's been able to accomplish more than Bill Simon would've. Or McClintock. Unfortunately, I believe he's all but lost the advantages he had. Much of that is due to our unwillingness to support him and the brain-damaged screw-ups he's been handed like GOP legislator authoring a plank of Arnold's reform agenda which could be spun into making him into the enemy of firefighter widows for crying out loud! And don't think his withdrawing that proposition has made it go away. There are union goon ads *right now* on radio and TV still beating that drum to make Arnold the most hated politician in the state. The mainstream media isn't being fair and the right wing media is taking its ball and going home like the spoiled brats they are in each losing election cycle.
Get on the reform agenda train or get out of California because if Arnold fails, the state will not be recoverable for sound policy for at least a generation, if not lost for good.
With "friends" like you, Arnold doesn't even need the union's spending tens of millions on advertising lies.
His poll numbers are way down because of the year's long assault from the unions. Nurses hate him. Firefighter widows hate him. Teachers hate him.
You've seen how dirty politics get from the left. You've seen how even political veteran Newt faced the unending lie about "cuts" when the GOP Congress was really proposing reductions in the increases! The left is always about controlling the terms of the debate. They're intellectually and morally bankrupt and thus are nearly impossible to beat when they have the advantage as they do in CA.
Prop 75, as you know, is an extinction level event for the tax dollar addicts running the public employee unions. Right now he's focused on attempting to bolster support for his core reforms. He said in a recent radio interview those are his focus. When it gets closer to the election he'll endorse. He said he supports the principle underlying Prop 75 and even mentioned parental notification (Prop 73) without prompting. He didn't put Prop 75 on the ballot. If you're depending on his endorsement to have to get it passed, then you've got bigger problems than you realize.
Without his well known persona and outsider status, we wouldn't be talking about any reforms at all. Unfortunately, the devious Democrat have regrouped and discovered that even Arnold can be tainted, tarnished and trashed with union tactics. He's Davey Crocket at the Alamo and, though flawed, is our best hope.
Look at the GOP failures before Arnold got elected: Bill Simon couldn't defeat the hated Davis who was *so* bad that he was recalled within a year of reelection. Bill Jones? He handed Boxer the 3rd highest vote total in all of 2004, even worse than Keyes in Illinois. Dan Lungren? Tom Campbell? Matt Fong? Might as well have been candidates D.O.A.
Newsflash: Arnold actually WON. We need to work with that--Republican CA major office holders are a RARE occurrence--and support him every time he is on the RIGHT side: no higher tax, tax repeals, licenses for illegals, border control, Minute Men support, 3 strikes, redistricting, battling the unions...
In the very first link you provided it say this: He'll attend no public events... and will only meet in private for several hours with Mexican and U.S. governors participating in the 23rd annual Border Governors Conference.
From the very same piece: Schwarzenegger attended the conference last year when it was held in Santa Fe, N.M.
Now... how do you spin something like "MEET... FOR SEVERAL HOURS" into saying he "did not participate in any of the meetings" and only "showed up for dinner one night." That kind of claim is a Clinton play-book LIE, playing fast and loose with the facts and using careful language to make FALSE implications.
I understood that he was in training for years. You blame his inexperience and lack of education on other GOP vets? Which vets specifically? They’ve literally cleared the path through the next primary. What else should Arnold have handed to him? A crown?
He singlehandedly offered the GOP a golden opportunity to reform CA by getting elected.
Opportunity for what? To adopt the Kennedy agenda?
Look you, and Hewitt and others around CA *MUST* support Arnold's package in November or we all might as well just cash out on our home equity windfalls and retreat to other states.
A bit melodramatic, don’t you think? Extending teacher tenure will have no measurable difference on the quality of life or education for years to come, if ever. [hint: it applies only to teachers hired prospectively.] I may support it, but not because I am told to do so.
...we must STOP with the negativity, the "what have you done for us lately" pettiness.
Holding a politician accountable to his promises is petty?
He's been able to accomplish more than Bill Simon would've. Or McClintock.
You’re right. He’s appointed more leftists to high positions, authorized higher debt, passed enormous spending increases, accomplished major landgrabs, sold us on the stem-cell research scam, signed the assault weapon legislation, and it looks like he will be successful in cramming the taxpayer subsidized hydrogen highway and solar roofs down our throats too. No other (R)epublican could have accomplished these things and still had party support.
Unfortunately, I believe he's all but lost the advantages he had. Much of that is due to our unwillingness to support him and the brain-damaged screw-ups he's been handed like GOP legislator authoring a plank of Arnold's reform agenda which could be spun into making him into the enemy of firefighter widows for crying out loud!
Still trying to spin this as the GOP legislators fault, and not Arnold and his administration, huh? Now, I know I’ve corrected you on this at least once. According to news reports, John Coupal was the author of the pension reform--he is not a GOP legislator.
Get on the reform agenda train or get out of California because if Arnold fails, the state will not be recoverable for sound policy for at least a generation, if not lost for good.
Wow. What an attitude. It sounds like you went to the Schwarzenegger school of management. Sorry, I’m not part of that 95% that needs to be told what to do.
“My relationship to power and authority is that I’m all for it,” he once explained. “People need somebody to watch over them.... Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave.”
--Arnold Schwarzenegger, U.S. News & World Report, Nov 26, 1990
RINOs don’t want reform. They just want to transfer the power so they can maintain their own wealth through big government programs.
Unfortunately, the devious Democrat have regrouped and discovered that even Arnold can be tainted, tarnished and trashed with union tactics. He's Davey Crocket at the Alamo and, though flawed, is our best hope.
Ummmm.... Davy Crockett was massacred at the Alamo and more than 100 men were killed. You might want to think of a new analogy.
Look at the GOP failures before Arnold got elected: Bill Simon couldn't defeat the hated Davis who was *so* bad that he was recalled within a year of reelection.
With his own party working against him, who would expect anything else?
Bill Jones? He handed Boxer the 3rd highest vote total in all of 2004, even worse than Keyes in Illinois. Dan Lungren? Tom Campbell? Matt Fong? Might as well have been candidates D.O.A.
Yep. Arnold’s early endorsement of a milk toast loser (Jones) ensured his primary win, only to be followed by the total absence of a campaign. Almost looked planned. Imagine that.
Newsflash: Arnold actually WON.
Arnold may have won, but did the people of California win? More debt, higher spending, socialist land grabs...(see above).
We need to work with that--Republican CA major office holders are a RARE occurrence--and support him every time he is on the RIGHT side: no higher tax, tax repeals, licenses for illegals, border control, Minute Men support, 3 strikes, redistricting, battling the unions...
I agree--if he is on the right side of these issues, I will strongly support him in those efforts. And I will oppose him when he is on the wrong side of other issues. So far, he seems to be backing off his immigration comments implying that California does not really have a problem that requires action. Will he support Ray Haynes border police initiative? I’ll support him all the way on that. (Remember, when Arnold had a chance to endorse Prop 54, he instead called its supporters "Right Wing Crazies.”) Will he support the anti-union Paycheck Protection measure? I’ll support him on that. Will he tell Cedillo to pound sand? I’ll support him on that.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.